If there is proof that has yet to be accounted for in your opponent's argument, then it is wholly discreditable and thus proof of your own concept. It also works if you claim to be unable to comprehend their proof. Example:

I can't see how a flagellum can evolve by itself, therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect, therefore someone must have put them together, therefore convert now!

Note: This generally works equally well in both directions:

I can't see how someone could have put a flagellum together, therefore the theory of Creation is incorrect, therefore it must have evolved by itself, therefore Let's Party!

Since August is such a good time of year, no one will disagree with a proof published then, and therefore it is true. Of course, the converse is also true, i.e., January is crap, and all the logic in the world will not prove your statement then.

This is a method of proof made famous by P. T. Johnstone. Start with a completely irrelevant fact. Construct a bijection from the irrelevant fact to the thing you are trying to prove. Talk about rings for a few minutes, but make sure you keep their meaning a secret. When the audience are all confused, write Q.E.D. and call it trivial. Example:

To prove the Chinese Remainder Theorem, observe that if p divides q, we have a well-defined function. Z/qZ → Z/qZ is a bijection. Since f is a homomorphism of rings, φ(mn) = φ(m) × φ(n) whenever (n, m) = 1. Using IEP on the hyperfield, there is a unique integer x, modulo mn, satifying x = a (mod m) and x = b (mod n). Thus, Q.E.D., and we can see it is trivial.

Often times in mathematics, it is useful to create abitrary "Where in the hell did that come from?" type theorems which are designed to make the reader become so confused that the proof passes as sound reasoning.

Math professors and logicians sometimes rely on their own intuition to prove important mathematical theorems. The following is an especially important theorem which opened up the multi-disciplinary field of YouTube.

Let k and l be the two infinities: mainly, the negative infinity and the positive infinity. Then, there exists a real number c, such that k and l cease to exist. Such a s is zero. We conclude that the zero infinity exists and is in between the postive and negative infinities. This theorem opens up many important ideas. For example, primitive logic would dictate that the square root of infinity, r, is a number less than r.

Conduct the proof in a confident manner in which you are convinced in what you are saying is correct, but which is absolute bollocks – and try to involve seagulls in some way. Example:

If sin x < x … for all x > 0 … and when … [pause to have a sip of water] … the fisherman … throws sardines off the back of the trawler … and x > 0 … then … you can expect the seagulls to follow … and so sin x = 0 for all x.

AN ARGUMENT MADE IN CAPITAL LETTERS IS CORRECT. THEREFORE, SIMPLY RESTATE THE PROPOSITION YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE IN CAPITAL LETTERS, AND IT WILL BE CORRECT!!!!!1 (USE TYPOS AND EXCLAMATION MARKS FOR ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT PROOFS)

Remember, something is not true when its proof has been verified, it is true as long as it has not been disproved. For this reason, the best strategy is to limit as much as possible the number of people with the needed competence to understand your proof.

Be sure to include very complex elements in your proof. Infinite numbers of dimensions, hypercomplex numbers, indeterminate forms, graphs, references to very old books/movies/bands that almost nobody knows, quantum physics, modal logic, and chess opening theory are to be included in the thesis. Make sentences in Latin, Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Ithkuil, and invent languages.

Be sure to provide some distraction while you go on with your proof, e.g., some third-party announces, a fire alarm (a fake one would do, too) or the end of the universe. You could also exclaim, "Look! A distraction!", meanwhile pointing towards the nearest brick wall. Be sure to wipe the blackboard before the distraction is presumably over so you have the whole board for your final conclusion.

Don't be intimidated if the distraction takes longer than planned – simply head over to the next proof.

This method of proof requires all possible values of the expression to be evaluated and due to the infinite length of the proof, can be used to prove almost anything since the reader will either get bored whilst reading and skip to the conclusion or get hopelessly lost and thus convinced that the proof is concrete.

Make a ridiculous imitation of your opponent in a debate. Arguments cannot be seriously considered when the one who proposes them was laughed at a moment before.

Make sure to use puppets and high-pitched voices, and also have the puppet repeat "I am a X", replacing X with any minority that the audience might disregard: gay, lawyer, atheist, creationist, zoophile, paedophile … the choice is yours!

If you, Y, disagree with X on issue I, you can invariably prove yourself right by the following procedure:

Get on TV with X.

Open with an ad hominem attack on X and then follow up by saying that God hates X for X's position on I.

When X attempts to talk, interrupt him very loudly, and turn down his microphone.

Remind your audience that you are impartial where I is concerned, while X is an unwitting servant of Conspiracy Z, e.g., the Liberal Media, and that therefore X is wrong. Then also remind your audience that I is binary, and since your position on I is different from X's, it must be right.

That sometimes fails to prove the result on the first attempt, but by repeatedly attacking figures X1, X2, …, Xn – and by proving furthermore (possibly using Proof by Engineer's Induction) that Xn is wrong implies Xn+1 is wrong, and by demonstrating that you cannot be an Xi because your stance on I differs due to a change in position i, demonstrating that while the set of Xi's is countable, the set containing you is uncountable by the diagonal argument, and from there one can apply Proof by Consensus, as your set is infinitely bigger – you can prove yourself right.

One of the principal methods used to prove mathematical statements. Remember, even if your achievements have nothing to do with the topic, you're still right. Also, if you spell even slightly better, make less typos, or use better grammar, you've got even more proof. The exact statement of proof by intimidation is given below.

Suppose a mathematicianF is at a position n in the following hierarchy:

A proof that is backed up by citations that may or may not contain a proof of the assertion. This includes references to documents that don't exist. (Cf. Schott, Wiggenmeyer & Pratt, Annals of Veterninary Medicine and Modern Domestic Plumbing, vol. 164, Jul 1983.)

Let the other state his claim in detail, wait he lists and explain all his argument and, at any time, explose in laughter and ask, "No, are you serious? That must be a joke. You can't really think that, do you?" Then you leave the debate in laughter and shout, "If you all want to listen to this parody of argument, I shan't prevent you!"

A proof in which there are so many errors that the reader can't tell whether the conclusion is proved or not, and so is forced to accept the claims of the writer. Most elegant when the number of errors is even, thus leaving open the possibility that all the errors exactly cancel each other out.

Include pornographic pictures or videos in the proof – preferably playing a porno flick exactly to the side of where you are conducting the proof. Works best if you pretend to be oblivious to the porn yourself and act as if nothing is unusual.

Well proven is the proof that all proofs need not be unproven in order to be proven to be proofs. But where is the real proof of this? A proof, after all, cannot be a good proof until it has been proven. Right?

Related to Proof by Belief, this method of attacking a problem involves the principle of mathematical freedom of expression by asserting that the proof is part of your religion, and then accusing all dissenters of religiously persecuting you, due to their stupidity of not accepting your obviously correct and logical proof. See also Proof by God.

If you say something is true enough times, then it is true. Repeatedly asserting something to be true makes it so. To repeat many times and at length the veracity of a given proposition adds to the general conviction that such a proposition might come to be truthful. Also, if you say something is true enough times, then it is true. Let n be the times any given proposition p was stated, preferably in different forms and ways, but not necessarily so. Then it comes to pass that the higher n comes to be, the more truth-content t it possesses. Recency bias and fear of ostracism will make people believe almost anything that is said enough times. If something has been said to be true again and again, it must definitely be true, beyond any shadow of doubt. The very fact that something is stated endlessly is enough for any reasonable person to believe it. And, finally, if you say something is true enough times, then it is true. Q.E.D.

Exactly how many times one needs to repeat the statement for it to be true, is debated widely in academic circles. Generally, the point is reached when those around die through boredom.

E.g., let A = B. Since A = B, and B = A, and A = B, and A = B, and A = B, and B = A, and A = B, and A = B, then A = B.

Proof by semantics is simple to perform and best demonstrated by example. Using this method, I will prove the famous Riemann Hypothesis as follows:

We seek to prove that the Riemann function defined off of the critical line has no non-trivial zeroes. It is known that all non-trivial zeroes lie in the region with 0 < Re(z) < 1, so we need not concern ourselves with numbers with negative real parts. The Riemann zeta function is defined for Re(z) > 1 by sum over k of 1/kz, which can be written 1 + sum over k from 2 of 1/kz.

Consider the group (C, +). There is a trivial action theta from this group to itself by addition. Hence, by applying theta and using the fact that it is trivial, we can conclude that sum (1/kz) over k from 2 is the identity element 0. Hence, the Riemann zeta function for Re(z) > 0 is simply the constant function 1. This has an obvious analytic continuation to Re(z) > 0 minus the critical line, namely that zeta(z) = 1 for all z in the domain.

Hence, zeta(z) is not equal to zero anywhere with Re(z) > 0 and Re(z) not equal to 1/2. Q.E.D.

Observe how we used the power of the homonyms "trivial" meaning ease of proof and "trivial" as in "the trivial action" to produce a brief and elegant proof of a classical mathematical problem.

The proof is accomplished by stating completely random and arbitrary facts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and then using these facts to mysteriously conclude the proof by appealing to the Axiom of Surprise. The most known user of this style of proof is Walter Rudin in Principles of Mathematical Analysis. To quote an example:

Theorem: If and is real, then .

Proof: Let be an integer such that , . For , . Hence, . Since , . Q.E.D.

Try to up the tension in the room by throwing in phrases like "I found my wife cheating on me … with another woman", or "I wonder if anybody would care if I slit my wrists tomorrow". The more awkward the situation you can make, the better.

Uncyclopedia is the greatest storehouse of human knowledge that has ever existed. Therefore, citing any fact, quote or reference from Uncyclopedia will let your readers know that you are no intellectual lightweight. Because of Uncyclopedia's steadfast adherence to accuracy, any proof with an Uncyclopedia reference will defeat any and all detractors.

(Hint: In any proof, limit your use of Oscar Wilde quotes to a maximum of five.)

If the Wikipedia website states that something is true, it must be true. Therefore, to use this proof method, simply edit Wikipedia so that it says whatever you are trying to prove is true, then cite Wikipedia for your proof.

However, despite all of these methods of proof, there is only one way of ensuring not only that you are 100% correct, but 1000 million per cent correct, and that everyone, no matter how strong or how argumentative they may be, will invariably agree with you. That, my friends, is being a girl. "I'm a girl, so there", is the line that all men dread, and no reply has been discovered which doesn't result in a slap/dumping/strop being thrown/brick being thrown/death being caused. Guys, when approached by this such form of proof, must destroy all evidence of it and hide all elements of its existence.

In recent years, proofs have gotten extremelyheavy (see Proof by Volume, second entry). As a result, in some circles, the process of providing actual proof has been replaced by a practice known as the Burden of Proof. A piece of luggage of some kind is placed in a clear area, weighted down with lead weights approximating the hypothetical weight of the proof in question. The person who was asked to provide proof is then asked to lift this so-called "burden of proof". If he cannot, then he loses his balance and the burden of proof falls on him, which means that he has made the fatal mistake of daring to mention God on an Internetmessage board.